The role of local knowledge in sustainable development programmes
Cummings, S.J.R.
2016
document version
Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record
Link to publication in VU Research Portal
citation for published version (APA)
Cummings, S. J. R. (2016). The role of local knowledge in sustainable development programmes: the need for
new modes of knowledge production and exchange.
General rights
Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain
• You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal ?
Take down policy
If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.
E-mail address:
vuresearchportal.ub@vu.nl
107
Chapter 6
Producing social capital as a development
strategy: implications for the micro-level
Abstract
6.1 Introduction
Social capital refers to the idea that there is value in our social fabric. Like our economic capital enables us to buy resources, our social capital enables us to access resources, providing access to information through the members of our networks and facilitating the achievement of common goals. The concept has become increasingly popular among scholars and development practitioners in the last two decades, largely influenced by Putnam’s (Halpern, 2005a: 9) analysis of the role of social capital in the differing democratic governance performance in northern and southern Italy (Putnam, 1993). The concept has also gained widespread recognition as relevant for development with endorsement by the World Bank, with social capital even being qualified as the ‘missing link’ in development (Grootaert, 1998). The World Bank presents the following definition of social capital as:
[T]he institutions, relationships, and norms that shape the quality and quantity of a society’s social interactions. Increasing evidence shows that social cohesion is critical for societies to prosper economically and for development to be sustainable. Social capital is not just the sum of the institutions which underpin a society – it is the glue that holds them together. (1999: no pagination)
Despite the recognition of the potential of social capital for development, the concept has also been subject to much criticism because of its negative implications but also because of lack of conceptual clarity (Portes and Landolt, 1996; Portes, 1998; Fine, 2001).
In the past decade, this journal has included a number of review articles (Bebbington, 2004; 2007; 2008; Fine, 2008) which have presented the polarised discussion on the value of the concept of social capital in development. Social capital has been the location of ‘a real battlefield of knowledge’ (Bebbington, 2004: 344), both within the World Bank where it was part of the language of attempted reform (Bebbington, 2004: 345-346) and outside where it has been seen to play ‘an ideological role in the neoliberal project, accommodating it rather than questioning it’ (Mayer and Rankin, 2002 cited in Bebbington, 2007: 158). In this way, the social capital terminology has been part of a broader, ideological debate to shift the onus of development from the state to civil society (Bebbington, 2007: 158). Although we are aware of this debate, the purpose of this article is not to contribute to it. Now that the dust has settled, we aim to take a new look at the concept and, in particular, how social capital contributes to poverty alleviation and how development initiatives can successfully invest in social capital. Therefore, this article consists of a first attempt to synthesise knowledge on the subject of mechanisms to produce social capital.
6.2 Methodology
retrieving nearly 14,000 articles. Attempts to identify key words that would retrieve articles concerning the mechanisms of social capital production were also unsuccessful. Therefore, sampling of literature was undertaken, using a method ‘akin to snowball sampling’ (Babbie, 2013: 265), to identify the relevant literature on social capital. This is a recognised method in social research:
Once you identify a particularly useful book or article, note which publications its author cites. Some of these will likely be useful. In fact, you’ll probably discover some citations that appear again and again, suggesting they are core references within the subject matter you are exploring… it’s about digging into the body of knowledge that previous researchers have generated. (Babbie, 2013: 265)
In addition, we took a grounded approach which permits a review to accommodate diverse types of articles, to identify emergent themes and to establish connections between texts (Dedding et al., 2011: 50). In this way, we were able to identify articles describing a range of outcomes and a range of mechanisms of social capital production, both in the context of resource-constrained countries and at the micro-level.
6.3 Theoretical perspectives: what is social capital?
The evidence of the development impact of social capital is underpinned by theoretical perspectives. We first review the main theoretical perspectives and then consider the theoretical understanding of the components of social capital. At the end of this section, we review current understandings of how social capital can contribute to development at the grassroots.
6.3.1 Definitions
Definitions abound. Although much of the popularity of the concept is due to Putnam’s work (1993, 1995), Bourdieu and Coleman are both responsible for its original conceptualization. Bourdieu’s (1986) conceptualization of social capital is based on the recognition that capital is not only economic and that social exchanges are not purely self-interested and need to encompass ‘capital and profit in all their forms’ (Bourdieu, 1986: 241). Bourdieu introduced new forms of capital: cultural and social capital. For Bourdieu ‘social capital is the aggregate of the actual and potential resources which are linked to possession of a durable network’ (1986: 248). This definition highlights the fact that individuals and groups derive profits (whether material or symbolic) from their social capital, although this does not mean that the profits are consciously pursued. Profits derive from the establishment and maintenance of relationships, processes that involve obligations that are subjectively felt (through feelings of gratitude, respect or friendship) or guaranteed by social institutions (referring to family members, heirs or knights). Indeed, an effort of sociability is necessary for social capital to be produced, with relationships being established and maintained through exchanges.
hence leaving space for the agency of the individual. Woolcock argues that definitions of social capital should focus on its sources instead of its outcomes, and also that some consensus on a definition has been reached, namely that social capital comprises ‘the norms and networks that facilitate collective actions’ (2001: 13).
In Bourdieu’s understanding, social capital cannot be instrumentalised to contribute to grassroots development but according to other commentators (Coleman, Lin and Woolcock) it is productive and can be accessed for development, being roughly equivalent to the social processes that facilitate collective action.
6.3.2 Components of social capital
In the theoretical literature, a number of components of social capital are identified which can contribute to development, namely collective action, scale of operation, interpersonal ties, and cognitive and structural elements.
6.3.2.1 Collective action
As it carries ‘opportunities for mutually beneficial collective action’ (Woolcock, 1998: 153), social capital can be perceived as a tool to explore humans both acting for their own good and for the good of the others. As Requena (2003: 331) puts it, social capital ‘brings together several important sociological concepts such as social support, integration and social cohesion.’ Hence, in the context of poverty alleviation, it permits an analysis of a development that carries the potential to be mutual. It does not talk about redistribution, or earning at the expense of, it talks about ‘win-win’ situations, and calls on a sense of goodness.
6.3.2.2 Scale of operations
Some scholars have described social capital as the property of communities (see, for example, Putnam, 1993) while others have described it at the individual (or relational) level (see, for example, Lin, 1999). Indeed, social capital exists at a variety of levels. Foley and Edwards (1999) argue that brokerage of social resources can be organized at different levels of networks: dyads and informal networks (Burt, 1997; Heying, 1997), voluntary or faith-based associations (Eastis, 1998; Wood, 1997), communities (Bebbington, 1997; Schulman and Anderson, 1999), cities (Portney and Berry, 1997), at national levels (Minkoff, 1997) and even at the transnational level of social movements (Smith, 1997; 1998). According to Halpern (2005a), social capital can be located at different levels: micro, at the individual level; meso, at the community level; and
macro, at the societal level. For Halpern (2005a), these levels can constitute the levels of analysis
as social capital is a multi-level concept. Rothstein (2003) argues that it is a strength of the theory of social capital that it facilitates the unusual combination of macro-sociological structures with micro-level mechanisms. From this perspective, social capital can facilitate development at the micro-level of collective action (groups, villages, associations) but also at the meso-level of institutions.
6.3.2.3 Interpersonal ties
combination of the amount of time, the emotional intensity, the intimacy (mutual confiding), and the reciprocal services which characterise the tie’ (1973: 1361). Taking the case of diffusion of innovations, Granovetter (1973) found that while safe innovations are taken up by central actors, controversial innovations are taken up by marginal actors with many weak ties. In addition, he showed that weak ties are an asset in the job market and that strong ties can be disadvantageous and fragment closed communities.
In addition to different combinations of social capital elements impacting differently upon welfare, different sets of combinations provide optimal utility along development paths. For example, poor entrepreneurs initially draw support from intra-community ties but, as their businesses expand and hence they develop, they participate in extra-community networks (Woolcock and Narayan, 2000; Maas et al., 2014). This modification of social capital can entail a disinvestment in some networks (Woolcock & Narayan, 2000). Indeed, economic growth, as emerging from innovations, is associated with transformative processes. This may involve a creative destruction which impacts on social capital domains as it can, for example, require replacing older contacts with newer ones (Bezemer et al., 2004).
In the literature, there is a consensus on the classification between three subtypes: bonding, and bridging, and linking social capital (see Table 6.1). At the micro-level, bonding refers to the familial networks, bridging to the networks with peers, and linking to the vertical networks with power holders (Halpern, 2005a).
Table 6.1 Bonding, bridging and linking ties at different levels of social interaction
Ties Bonding Bridging Linking
Micro Level Family Peers Power-holders
Meso Level Intra-community Inter-community Between stratas
Macro Level Nation International
networks
Global organizations Source: Halpern, 2005a.
6.3.2.4 Cognitive and structural components
norms and traditions constructing social capital can result in contradictory outcomes for women.
6.3.3 Differing perspectives on social capital
Social capital is a concept that has received an enormous amount of attention as can be seen in the prolific literature on the subject. It has also been the subject of controversies, with many authors even questioning its capacity to be useful (for an early statement see Harriss and de Renzio, 1997). Some commentators conceive social capital as a collective good while others as an individual good at the micro/ meso/ macro scale. Others argue that the sources and the benefits of social capital are sometimes not differentiated (ie what it is versus what it does) and that different types of networks serve different functions (bonding/ bridging/ linking ties). In addition, some authors emphasize the place of trust (such as Putnam), others conceive trust as a precursor of social capital (such as Lin), while it is absent from Bourdieu’s theory. This theoretical complexity provides the background against which the empirical studies of the role of social capital in development will be analysed. Indeed, both positive and negative perspectives have been identified which Rubio (1997) has identified as ‘productive social capital’ and ‘perverse social capital.’
6.4 Empirical perspectives: productive social capital
There is considerable evidence that social capital contributes to economic gains and poverty alleviation; health and wellbeing; and to development initiatives.
6.4.1 Economic gains and poverty alleviation
Social capital is often correlated with economic gains by reduced transaction costs but also by
6.4.2 Health and wellbeing
There are many studies describing the positive consequences of social capital for health (Halpern, 2005c). For example, strong family bonds decrease the likelihood of developing serious diseases (Russek and Schwartz, 1997) and a wider social network has been associated with lower mortality rates (Berkman and Syme, 1979). Satisfaction with interpersonal relationships is a better predictor of happiness than economic pathways (Helliwell, 2001), married people are generally happier than the unmarried (Donovan and Halpern, 2003), and membership of groups or associations is correlated with higher happiness (Argyle, 1987; Helliwell, 2002). At the level of the individual, social capital contributes to improved health and wellbeing.
6.4.3 Development initiatives
Social capital has often been found to contribute to the success of development initiatives. Social capital of farmers in Rajasthan, India, resulted in successful watershed management (Krishna and Uphoff, 2002). The success of the Gal Oya irrigation scheme in Sri Lanka was linked to increases in social capital (Uphoff, 1996) with evidence of a fourfold increase in water production as a result of inter-ethnic cooperation (Uphoff and Wijayaratna, 2000; Wijayaratna and Uphoff, 1997). Water delivery in Central Java, Indonesia, showed that the design of the most appropriate water delivery system for a given community depends on the level of social capital within the community because its members are more familiar with cooperation (Isham and Kahkonen, 2002). Higher levels of social capital of neighbourhoods in Dhaka, Bangladesh, increased the likelihood of inhabitants organizing their own waste collection (Pargal, Gilligan and Huq, 2002). Social capital also facilitates the implementation and success of NGO projects based on group work (Ahmad, 2003) and facilitates the diffusion of programme benefits to non-beneficiaries (Bandiera et al., 2009).
These empirical studies show that social capital can improve development outcomes at the individual, household, community and project level. However, there are also a number of empirical studies which show that social capital can have a detrimental effect on development outcomes.
6.5 Empirical perspectives: perverse social capital
According to Mayoux, the World Bank identified three problematic components of social capital construction on its website:
There is evidence that social capital can exclude. Cleaver (2005) demonstrates that the poor in Tanzania are unable to use social capital as a resource for their development. In such cases, social capital reproduces chronic poverty by excluding the poorest because the poor have no means to invest in social relations or lack the ability to negotiate in unequal exchanges where their agency is constrained. In a study of social capital of micro-finance groups for women in Cameroon, Mayoux (2001) shows that social capital exacerbates inequalities. Moreover, other studies identify the gender-specific challenges of social capital. Woolcock and Narayan (2000) describe how girls in India are prevented from attending school because of their ties with the community. Not all household members have access to the same kind of social capital and, in particular, men’s social capital can differ from women’s (Bebbington, 2007). Moreover, men’s social capital can be detrimental to women (Silvey and Elmhirst, 2003; Mayoux, 2001; Bebbington, 2007).
Social capital can also produce negative (anti-social) externalities for the outside environment (Portes and Landolt, 1996; Woolcock and Narayan, 2000). For example, street youths in Toronto and Vancouver, Canada, were found to have strong social capital within communities where crime is ‘normal’ and their type of social capital favoured crime (Hagan and McCarthy, 1997) and the famous example of organized crime of the Mafia (Servadio, 1976).
Moreover, social capital’s outcomes are context-dependent (Foley and Edwards, 1999). Krishna and Uphoff (1999) also support the context-dependent analysis with data showing that heterogeneous networks are sometimes better from a social capital perspective while sometimes it is horizontal networks. From this perspective, different networks can produce different outcomes. To summarize, different components of social capital are associated with different welfare outcomes, and the types of combinations that will lead to positive outcomes are inherently context-dependent.
6.6 How to facilitate strengthening of productive social
capital?
resource-poor settings across the globe. We do not differentiate between purposeful development of social capital and development of social capital as a consequence.
6.6.1 Development initiatives
Within a wide range of domains, studies have shown that development projects can strengthen social capital. For example, micro-credit (see, for example, Larance, 1998) has been described as producing social capital. In the domain of agricultural production, examples comprise (community based) fisheries management in Vietnam (Sultana and Thompson, 2004) and Bangladesh (Islam et al., 2011; Sultana and Thompson, 2004), or the collective production of agricultural outputs in Rwanda (Elder et al., 2012). Through the development of agricultural marketing, social capital has also been modified through, for example, the establishment of farmers’ associations to sell to modern food outlets in Uganda (Kaganzi et al., 2009). Initiatives focusing on environmental production have also been linked to change in social capital, such as in the case of the collective management of a coral reef area in Tobago and the coastal defence in Vietnam (Adger, 2003); an environmental service programme in India which triggered cooperation (Kerr, 2002); a market-based approach to agrobiodiversity in India, Vietnam, Thailand and Syria which generated collective action, enhanced trust and mutual understanding (Kruijssen et al., 2009); and a community initiated development in Taiwan which triggered network formation, collective action and reinforced trust (Tai, 2007). Intentional efforts to foster social links of migrant populations have also been associated with change in social capital, such as in the case of resettlement following a typhoon in Vietnam (Da Costa and Turner, 2006), and formalized rural-urban migrant organizations in Indonesia (Silvey and Elmhirst, 2003). The common approach of fostering information networks has also been linked to social capital, examples include farmer research teams in Honduras (Humphries et al., 2012; Classen et al., 2008) and the Honey Bee Network, a knowledge network in India which aims to augment grassroots innovations by linking different actors which, by promoting learning networks and transforming mind-sets, enhanced reciprocity, trust, and common-good values (Gupta et al., 2003). Another domain, although not a development enterprise, concerns the social capital development brought about by churches (Cilliers and Wepener, 2007), an approach that is consistent with the fact that the attendance of churches is used as one of the proxies to measure social capital levels (see, for example, Putnam, 1995).
6.6.2 Categories of mechanisms
Within the development field, Humphreys, Bebbington and Gomez (2005) have argued that rituals play a central role in the creation of social capital through micro-finance institutions in Peru and Guatemala. In the poverty stricken context of Paarl area, South Africa, Cilliers and Wepener (2007) not only show that rituals contribute to social capital production but also describe this process occurring at four different levels: (i) the material level comprising places to meet; (ii) the sense of belonging and creation of trust (via hospitality, shared meals, prayers for the sick); (iii) civic literacy including skills to communicate and organize (via singing, meetings); and (iv) the ethos to foster equity which challenges power-holders to engage in reciprocal, equitable relationships and processes (linking social capital) via cooperative planning and redistribution of resources (Cilliers and Wepener, 2007). This classification of levels at which social capital can be generated is applied to our findings. We will therefore describe how, at the micro-level, development initiatives are able to produce social capital at these different levels.
6.6.2.1 The material level of structural opportunities
Therefore, creating structural platforms that provide opportunities to meet are a way to produce social capital which have been used in a variety of contexts.
6.6.2.2 A sense of belonging
Cognitive social capital, such as common norms, goes together with a sense of belonging in a group. Sense of belonging has been shown to be fostered by different initiatives. Learning skills for group work in Uganda fostered shared norms, interdependence and trust (Kaganzi et al., 2009). Cultural habits were developed during the compulsory meetings linked to micro-credit initiatives (Anderson et al., 2002). In the latter case, common-good norms were developed through routinization (Anderson et al., 2002).
In addition to fostering shared norms, a sense of belonging enhances recognition in the eyes of the other. Micro-finance activities in rural Bangladesh have had a positive impact on social capital because new networks have been established and existing networks strengthened. Larance (1998) describes the process of enhancement of social capital as women’s personal recognition increases, enhancing their confidence, dignity and sense of identity. Furthermore, collective identity is built on individual identity, facilitating community cooperation. Such changes have an impact on the direct beneficiaries but also enhance networks and cooperative norms at the village level (Larance, 1998). This is consistent with Bourdieu describing cognition and recognition building the relations of social capital.
Linked to a sense of belonging between individuals is the trust that can be created. Indeed, mechanisms have been described that are used by individuals to strengthen mutual trust at the micro-level. In his study of farmer-trader relationships in Ghana, Lyon (2000) considers that people build trust within their working relationships through continuous interactions over time where information is shared and reciprocity enacted, but also by ‘tests’ of trust (such as lending money). In addition, working relationships develop into friendships which also foster trust, such as when a trader attends the funeral of a customer’s family member or when a farmer names a child after a customer (Larance, 1998).
6.6.2.3 Civic literacy
The skills of cooperative social interaction, or what Cilliers and Wepener (2007) call civic literacy, can be learned. Indeed, skills for group work have been learned by ‘learning by doing’ in Ugandan farmer associations (Kaganzi et al., 2009). Small-scale potato farmers were led to organize collectively and hence had to develop their social capital in order to access new market opportunities linked with urbanization. These farmers formed groups, and together were able to successfully develop market channels to supply a fast food restaurant in the capital city of Kampala. Farmers developed new skills for group work throughout the process which played an important role in the success of their collective actions. They developed the skills of social capital formation in the process of engaging in cooperative action.
6.6.2.4 The ethos of mutuality
fair-trade certification groups in Rwanda which enhanced one aspect of structural social capital, namely farmers’ participation and, in particular, the participation of women (Elder et al., 2012). Another example concerns strategies to improve the management of common natural resources that involved collective action between different stakeholders, implying that social capital was intentionally built. In this case, the participatory action plan development method was used, consisting of local workshops led by facilitators, which aimed to develop consensus and led to perceived gains in trust, cooperation and social cohesion (Sultana and Thompson, 2004). In the Andes, better development of federations of the rural poor was attributed to the sustained support of external actors, such as religious leaders and NGOs, who could develop federations’ social capital (Bebbington and Carroll, 2000). External actors were indeed able to develop social capital of the federations by mediating conflicts and ensuring transparency. An external NGOs was also found to play a role in mediating the building of networks of social entrepreneurs in Bangladesh (Maas et al., 2014).
A sense of goodness is also described in different ways. Gupta et al. (2003) describe the ability of the Honey Bee Network to foster an ethical capital with a modification of values and norms. Candland (2000) describes four faith-based NGOs in Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Pakistan and Thailand who participate in community development and foster social capital. These NGOs promote the norms underlying social capital (cooperation and trust) as a good in themselves. Candland (2000) shows that government policies can foster faith-based NGOs’ ability to strengthen social capital for social development but that the effectiveness depends on the state not promoting a civic religion. Another example shows that social capital can be developed through remittances. Senegalese people living in France and Italy send remittances to their home country: which represent a way of maintaining migrants’ social capital with their home community (Chort, Gubert and Senne, 2012). Remittances can be viewed as a fee that allows migrants to keep access to their networks. Payment is enforced through social control, namely the fear of being marginalized, and this reinforces solidarity norms within migrant communities (Chort, Gubert and Senne, 2012). Hence, sending remittances contribute to social capital as this enhances common-good norms between migrants (Chort, Gubert and Senne, 2012).
6.6.3 Overview of mechanisms and elements of modified social capital
formation. Hence, we show (Figure 6.1), how these mechanisms fit into our conceptual framework of social capital to produce it.
Figure 6.1 A synthesis of the concept of social capital Source: Authors
6.7 Conclusions
This paper aims to contribute to understandings of how we can invest in mechanisms to strengthen social capital in order to alleviate poverty and facilitate development at the grassroots. To do this, it first reviewed theoretical perspectives of social capital and then considered productive and perverse social capital as described in empirical studies. We found that social capital is a complex concept and that strengthening of social capital will not necessarily result in positive outcomes. This has important implications when trying to intrumentalise social capital for poverty alleviation because different combinations of the components of social capital lead to different outcomes, in a context-dependent manner. The third part of this paper on facilitation of the production on social capital should be seen against this background. In this part, we provided a review of mechanisms described as strengthening social capital as part of development initiatives, mechanisms which are triggering different combinations of social capital and in different contexts. Although we aim to contribute to development practice with this paper, it is important to emphasize the importance of context and the limitations in replicating mechanisms.
explicitly aimed to build social capital, highlighting norms of mutuality and responsibility. These four categories appear to be strongly interwoven with one project component able to leverage various mechanisms.
Through different mechanisms, development projects are able to strengthen social capital for positive development outcomes. The four mechanisms-categories for social capital production are four paths that can serve to identify opportunities for social capital production. These opportunities can be created, or already existing and taken advantage of. One way of doing this is by facilitating structural opportunities to meet. For example, we can envision that opportunities to meet could be facilitated in the group meetings often organized when development initiatives are set up. At these meetings, learning of the skills of social interaction can be facilitated and civic literacy can also be developed. The ethos of mutuality can be fostered by the promotion of transparency and of consensus in decision-making. Developing a sense of belonging is a possible path to follow: proud ‘members’ of a programme can find themselves empowered with this new identity.
The four categories of social capital production mechanisms identified in this article are interesting mechanisms that offer potential for replication in the aim of producing social capital to alleviate poverty. However, this does not spare us from a heightened attention to the kind of outcomes that are generated: one must remain observant. Indeed, social capital outcomes are context-dependent. In addition, the mechanisms we studied trigger different combinations of social capital sub-types. And as different set of combination of social capital have been shown to be linked to outcomes, and as outcomes can be negative, it remains to be in-depth studied which mechanisms trigger which components and what are the outcomes. A level of details we could not get to by our literature study.
